3D-MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Convert n-gons to triangles' implies a mutation operation (changing mesh geometry), but the description doesn't state whether this is destructive to original data, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the output looks like. For a tool that modifies mesh structures, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses precise terminology ('n-gons', 'triangles'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'triangulate' means in practical terms (e.g., breaking polygons with >3 sides into triangles), potential impacts on mesh topology, or what happens to attributes like UVs or normals. For a tool that alters geometry, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema thoroughly documents the 'items' array with its nested properties like 'meshId', 'method', 'facesToTriangulate', and 'preserveBoundaries'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Convert n-gons to triangles' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('n-gons'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'quadrangulate' which performs a different polygon conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is a mesh processing operation, which could be inferred from context but isn't stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a mesh with n-gons), exclusions (e.g., not applicable to curves), or compare it to related tools like 'quadrangulate' for converting to quads. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.